TN - Child support termination bill attacked

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...
snip for length

The family and fatherhood has been virtually eliminated by modern
feminism. It's been dead for a couple of decades now since the
advent
of
abortion-as-birth-control and "no-fault divorce" added to the
anti-male
court decisions and tactics. The first thing that will be needed
to
fight
for them is to fight for the equalization of rights AND
responsibilities
of both parties. As long as abortion on demand is available to
women
without any consideration to the father and as long as "no-fault
divorce"
exists coupled to the anti-male legal procedures available to
women
of
questionable moral standards, nothing can change for the better.

Absolutely. But do you eally believe that the judges that sit in
family
court are gong to listen and/or uphold the "rights/responsibilities"
argumant, and permit men to walk away from any responsibility just
because
they do not have any rights? I cannot see that happening. I can,
however,
see small inroads in the demand for 50/50 custody. It is going to
be
a
long
and bloody battle.

Well guess what, the only way that is going to happen is if blood is
shed
literally. Apparently, you are oblivious to the fact that we are
dealing
with insane people who will defend their agenda at all costs.
================================
As you do yours, Chris.

Oh? And just what is this agenda that I am willing to die for?

Willing to die for? Apparently you're not. But you say that blood must
be
shed--I guess you want that to be someone's other than yours.

With all due respect, how the heck do you come to THAT conclusion?



If you really feel that blood must be shed to right
this wrong, why haven't you done so? Or is it just words with you, and
you
are hoping that others will take the actions that you see as
inevitable,
and
bear the brunt of the repercussions.
=================================


We need to fight for rights for men in several areas.
But we also need to fight for MORE RESPONSILILITY for the women who,
at
this
point in time, are living off of men, and have absolutely no means
or
desrie
to support themselves and their children. Holding women accountable
would
be a MAJOR step!!



Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for
years,
he
can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still
be
held
responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his
income.

Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk
away
because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men
in
families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting
thier
children, even though they did not bear those children
themselves?

Good point, TM.
The main difference is that he had to be proactive in making the
step
to
become a legal parent and could have chosen NOT to be a parent at
any
time
up until actually signing the document legalizing his
responsibility.
In
other words, he had a clear and definite legal choice and had to
take
actual steps to become a parent. A married man is the father and
has
no
options other than to be celebate, which is not likely to be a
long
or
happy marriage.

My husband and I decided together to bring our children into the
world.

Untrue.
========================
Only in your bitter little world, Chris.

And in the LEGAL world as well.

Nope--you are absolutely wrong. BOTH of us are legally responsible for
our
children.

Nice twist, once again. You ought to be nicknamed "the twister".





He
is not a "victim." We both love our children and want the best for
them.
One is 13.5, and the other is truning 15 on Weds. How can you say
that
his
choice/responsibility is any less than that of an adoptive father?
That
is
where my understanding breaks down. I don't understand how you
interpret
his parenthood as being *forced* when he loves and wanted our girls
just
as
much as I did.

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a
drunk
driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk driver
to
drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current situation
is
like
putting the passenger in jail and allowing the driver to just walk
away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men likened
to
passengers?

When it comes to making the choice whether or not she will bear a
child,
men
are just along for the ride. And that's the LAW!

=====================
When it comes to the right to bring a pregnancy to birth, that is
true.

I rest my case.

Then your case is incomplete--but you already know that.

Explain.





But after the post-comception rights comes the period of raising the
child.
The issues now change from post-conception issues to custody issues.

Untrue. It's still a post-conception issue.

Only in your bitter little world, Chris.

Well let's see: It's an issue. It takes place AFTER conception. Therefore,
it is a POST-conception issue. Strange logic in this "bitter little world",
eh?





A
completely different scenario requiring a completely different
solution.
THAT's the LAW.
============================================





The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options
to
women
and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if
any
at
all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos
responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable
of
making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral
responsibility
in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If family
courts
fight to give women the majority of the options now, what makes you
think
you could **ever** get things changed to women being the ones being
screwed
by the law and men having all the choices?

NOWHERE does he ever suggest that!

=============================
Sure you do, Chris. All the time. You want ot remove any vestige of
responsibility for children from men. A system fully as evil as the one
in
place today.

1. I was referring to the other poster, not myself.
2. NEVER have I claimed that I want women to get screwed by the law and
let
men have all the choices.

No--you say that, since women now have all the choices about giving birth,
they should also have all the responsibility for the child--even if the
man
and woman decided together to bring the child into the world.

No I didn't.

You say that
it is impossible for men to be a part of the decision, because *legally*
the
choice to bring a pregnancy to birth rests with the mother. And that
nullifies, in your little world, the fact that men and womwn do, indeed,
make choices together regarding children.

Untrue.

You don't seem capable of
understanding that their are people out there--lots of them--who do not
look
at every choice as "what will I get out of it--can I screw someone legally
if I do this." There are things far more inmportant in this life than
*legal*.

And that has WHAT to do with the issue?




3.NEVER have I claimed that I want to remove responsibility for children
from men.

No, not remove--but give them the legal right to walk away at any time
they
choose to do so, since they are simply being magnanimous in their support
of
their children, and can stop at any time.

Inaccurate. I don't claim to "want" anything. My only claim is that NOBODY
should ever be held accountable for a choice which they are incapable of
making.



========================================



The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both.
If
women
can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father should have
the
same
ability in the same time period to make the same decision to abort
his
responsibility toward a child he doesn't want. Then make both
parents
truly equal (in responsibility and authority) of any born
children.
This
would also require some new laws such as a mother that in any way
hides
the birth of a child from the father should not be able to sue for
child
support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities.

........ except when it comes to the right to choose parenthood.

=========================
On the contrary, Chris, I have always maintained that men need a
safe-haven
law equitable to the one in place for women.

"Parenthood" as in having offspring.

You ask for far too much control over another human being, Chris. If you
provide the sperm that results in a pregnancy, you cannot possibly
realistically demand the right to order an abortion, just because you do
not
want that child to exist!

And?




===========================

Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and Motherhood being equally
important
in
the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris.
I
see
a
father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual".
And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess
what
else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply
follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris.
Of
course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has
responsibility.
She
can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or
even
after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available
to
him.
He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but
only
if
SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and
they
are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more.
You
cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house
payment
for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal
responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us
made
the
choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged,
pleaded
or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is yours
and
yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally
subvert?

But I **didn't**!!! Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Why don't you answer his question? I thought it was straightforward.

=======================
That **is** the answer, Chris! People are defined by their choices. I
**did not** subvert his choices--we both chose to have our children,
and
we
are raising them together. Problem is, you don't recognize it as an
answer
because it does not fit into your bitter little world.

"Bitter little world" or not, I don't recognize it as an answer because
it
ISN'T an answer. He didn't request a definition; he CLEARLY asked for a
legal right (to make you bear a child) held by your husband that you
could
not legally thwart.

There IS no such legal right--

EXACTLY!

we live beyond the necessity of silly little
legal rights. You do not seem to do so. Thus the bitterness of your
little
world.

Other than everything is now "little", did you have a point?





===========================


He and
I
agreed. We BOTH made the commitment! And continue to do so each
and
every
day. Just because the law says I could do otherwise does not mean
that
I
would disgrace myself in such a way. And there are many of us who
feel
the
exact same way! I even know quite a number of divorced couples who
would
not **dream** of subjugating their children to the idiocy of
fighting
over
who is the most important parent. Honor still means something to
most
people. We just happen to be caust up in a system that is run by
slimeballs, and it is easy to forget that most people would be
shocked
if
they ever really knew what is going onm and paid for by their
hard-earned
tax dollars.

The only way this could be true is if his desire to produce and
have
a
child was legally binding on you in any form or fashion OR he had
the
ability to deny responsibility for the child.

But, again, you are just looking at the slimey system--not at the
honor
and
dignity that are the biggest part of our commitment to each other
and
our
children. There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose
not
to
be
part of. Just because they are available does not mean that we
should
be
held responsible for what "might be done."

The above is like saying pay no attention to a system that allows men
to
rape women because some will choose to not be a part of it.

=========================
No, Chris, it's not. I have never said that the system should be
ignored.

"...you are just looking at the slimey system--not at the honor...".
I might add: Of COURSE he's just looking at the system, because it's
the
system that's the problem. I went to the doctor for a breathing problem
the
other day. You think they discussed my feet?

The system is there and that cannot be ignored. But there are thousands
upon thousands of people who NEVER get touched by the system. It is
irrelevant in their lives. They make their decisions based on
relationship,
commitment, honor--qualities that the system does not comprehend.
Although
we were caught up in the system, we did not live our lives based on the
system--we lived our lives based on who we are.

Congratulations. But that does NOT change the fact that such system is a
real threat breathing down the necks of many at ALL times.



I
have espoused specific solutions that need to be fought for. I am
saying
that you cannot hold every individual everywhere responsible for acts
that
the **might commit.** Do you think you should be arrested because you
**might commit** murder? Or do you think you should only be held
responsible if you *do* commit murder?

Not worth answering.

What? No answer?

I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, but such questions are indeed
insulting. Do you still insist on answers?



=========================


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the rights
you
allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children.
That
is
far
more important than the idiot laws that produce possibilities that
we
would
never consider.

TOTALLY irrelevant to someone being attacked by such laws.

==================
And that in no way reflects on our commitment to each other and our
children, Chris. WE chose to have chldren and WE are raising them
TOGETHER.

Like I said, totally irrelevant to the one being attacked AND the topic
at
hand. Also, impossible for "we" to have (choose to bear) children.

Only in your bitter little world, Chris.

"Bitter little world". New phrase or favorite phrase?





Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as
any
different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with
children
result in the custody the mother chooses along with a promise of
a
monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him equal
responsibility,
even
sincerely believe you are equal parents but legally, you are not
and
never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you
want
that
I
am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you are
WRONG.
You are far too jaded, and need to take a step back and realize
that
there are still decent, caring people in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does
not
have
any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate and even
that
doesn't always work thanks to the courts). Regardless the fact
that
you
regard this choice as a joint decision, 100% of the legal rights
remain
yours and yours alone even if you CHOSE not to enforce them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important than
personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

When it comes to the people with the bigger guns, legal rights are
the
ONLY
rights that count.

=========================
That seems to be the way it is in yourcase, Chris. But it is not so
for
everyone.
=====================================

There ARE many, many
good
and honorable people out there who will **never** avail themselves
of
the
legal rights you speak of, but you seem to be tarring all women with
the
same brush.

He's done no such thing. He is only pointing out how the courts are
tarring
fathers.


Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I
didn't.

But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter
WHICH
choice
you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual choice
was
YOU.

NO, Phil, the choice was OURS, and we made it together.

No, that's where you're wrong.
You gave his input meaning. His 'choice' to have a child was
wholly
dependent on you, either way.

So? Why is this so important to you?

May not be important to him, but it is a legal fact that you dispute.

================
No, Chris, I don't.

When did you change your mind?

I don't live my life always looking at things in terms such as "If this
doesn't work out, can I legally be screwed, ow will I have the legal power
to screw the other person." I'm sorry that you have to live constantly
with
such a burden, Chris.

This alleged burden of mine is a figment of your imagination.
Again, when did you change your mind?





I just say that there is more to life than the legal
that you seem so intent on raising to godhood.

The legal often belongs in the toilet! So much for your "godhood".

No mine, Chris. Yours. I don't elevate the legal to the point of letting
it determine my every choice.

It does not determine my every choice either; but it most certainly has an
influence. Perhaps you might review your term "godhood". Belonging in the
toilet hardly qualifies for such definition.




Our choices were not based
on legal, but on our commitment to each other.
=========================


Do you really think that all women
are so shallow that they have their "legal rights" uppermost in
their
minds,
and are just waiting for an opportunity to harm their husbands?

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say the answer is no.
Since
this
is a straw man, your question is irrelevant anyway.



You were under no legal obligation to produce a child regardless
how
badly
he wanted one and he would be responsible for any child he
produced
that
he didn't want. That you allowed his opinion to have the meaning
you
ascribed to it was still not legally binding in any manner.

There you are with the "legal" again. I don't live my life with
that
as
my
primary focus.

Of course not because you don't have such legal burden. Never had it,
don't
have it now, and NEVER will have it. Perhaps if you did, your tune
would
be
different. I see you go ballistic even at the thought of removing the
unfair
burden on fathers and placing back on mothers where it RIGHTFULLY
belongs!
And that's just making things fair. Now imagine going one step
further
and
making them just as unfair to mothers as they have been to fathers.
You
would probably go through the roof!
========================
Hahahahahaha! What a jerk, Chris!! Our lives were turned upside down
by
the legal system you claim has not harmed me. Do you think I started
posting
on this group just for the fun of it. I **HAVE** been harmed by the
system.
My children **HAVE** been harmed by the system. And not because of any
choices that **I** made!

For what it's worth, this funny "jerk" was referring to the legal burden
placed on a man, because he is a father, of being forced to pay his
money
to
a woman for her sole choice to bear his biological child. YOU had that
burden?

Our family had that burden, Chris.

Im sorry; was that a "yes" or a "no"?

Do you relly think that only the man is
harmed by the system? Must be that man-as-victim thing again.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message

[snip]

And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be
changed
in
the
system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We
need
balance
and
fairness.

A concept FOREIGN to you.

Now, Chris, TM is well aware of the problems in the system of
divorce
and custody, especially custody and child support.
She understands that well.

So long as she denies the relationship between rights (or
"choice"
as you
put it) and responsibilities, she does NOT understand it. And
guess
what,
she DENIES it!


I use the word "choice" because "rights", by law must be equal and
the "choice" of men and women in reproductive matters is vastly
different (men have none).

I think the problem she is having in understanding the full
control
over all matters of reproduction that women have is because she is
sincere in her marriage being a partnership.

I think we need to separate out post-conception rights and custody
rights. Men's post-comceptiom rights should be equitable to
women's.
Havin a safe-have type law would cover that issue.

I prefer the other direction in that parents, regardless their sex be
responsible for the children they create and if actually unable to
actually care for them, to pay someone else to do so. Meaning that no
one gets to just walk away from their responsibility.

And if they don't pay?


There would have to be some form of punishment akin to abuse or neglect
of children. Me, I favor work farms for those who choose to deny their
responsibility and this includes mothers. This would require a large
change in custody and child support, effectively destroying the current
system.
Parents should always have the *option* of directly supporting (actually
rearing) their children or paying someone who is willing to do so
(exception: *proven* danger to the child). The current system replaces
actually supporting one's child with money and mandates that certain
people should not be allowed to choose to raise their children,
effectively divorced or never-married dads.
Phil #3


Custody is an entirely different issue. Custody kicks in when both
parents want to be active parents in their child's life and have
forgone their safe-haven choices. That is when default 50/50 joint
custody should kick in. Just saying that men should be able to walk
away from any child at any time because they do not have the anatomy
to
bear children is as bad as saying that men should pay child support
for
every child simply becuse they are men. But we absolutely must
separate out post-comception and custody issues.

As long as none of it is dependent on one's sex, which is the way it
is
currently done for both reproduction choices and custody.
I heavily disagree with any parent simply abandoning an infant,
mother
or father.
Interestingly, one of the arguments for the current system of child
support is that it keeps the state from having to pay for this
unwanted
child yet these same people (feminists) demand that women be allowed
to
abandon any unwanted children, leaving them for the state to finance
and
no one seems to catch that they are talking out of both sides of
their
mouths on this issue (and others).
Phil #3

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
snip for length

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they
must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of
sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility
to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are
still some women demanding more options and less
responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men
is NOT going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has
the options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it
should come an equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both
responsibility and options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the
idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on
his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without
looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them.


Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the
choice the mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having
children, the ultimate and unilateral decision is the mothers
only.

So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very
sad, Phil. I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth
fighting for.

The family and fatherhood has been virtually eliminated by modern
feminism. It's been dead for a couple of decades now since the
advent of abortion-as-birth-control and "no-fault divorce" added to
the anti-male court decisions and tactics. The first thing that
will be needed to fight for them is to fight for the equalization
of rights AND responsibilities of both parties. As long as abortion
on demand is available to women without any consideration to the
father and as long as "no-fault divorce" exists coupled to the
anti-male legal procedures available to women of questionable moral
standards, nothing can change for the better.

Absolutely. But do you eally believe that the judges that sit in
family court are gong to listen and/or uphold the
"rights/responsibilities" argumant, and permit men to walk away from
any responsibility just because they do not have any rights? I
cannot see that happening.

Of course not. We live in a highly feminized society where women are
given special legal abilities without the same responsibility that
men have. This includes more than reproductive rights and includes
criminal charges, divorce, custody, child support, the armed forces,
jobs, sexual harassment, etc.

I can, however, see small inroads in the demand for 50/50 custody.
It is going to be a long and bloody battle. We need to fight for
rights for men in several areas.

I see no major changes, only individual skirmishes won that carry no
meaning in the overall war.

But we also need to fight for MORE RESPONSILILITY for the women who,
at this point in time, are living off of men, and have absolutely no
means or desrie to support themselves and their children. Holding
women accountable would be a MAJOR step!!

No argument from me there. Women should be held to the same standard
as men and visa versa but I don't believe it can happen in my
lifetime.




Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for
years, he can be kicked out of the family without much trouble
and still be held responsible for paying the mother a large
percentage of his income.

Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk
away because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the
men in families who adopted children? Shall they be held to
supporting thier children, even though they did not bear those
children themselves?

Good point, TM.
The main difference is that he had to be proactive in making the
step to become a legal parent and could have chosen NOT to be a
parent at any time up until actually signing the document
legalizing his responsibility. In other words, he had a clear and
definite legal choice and had to take actual steps to become a
parent. A married man is the father and has no options other than
to be celebate, which is not likely to be a long or happy marriage.

My husband and I decided together to bring our children into the
world. He is not a "victim." We both love our children and want the
best for them. One is 13.5, and the other is truning 15 on Weds.
How can you say that his choice/responsibility is any less than that
of an adoptive father? That is where my understanding breaks down.
I don't understand how you interpret his parenthood as being
*forced* when he loves and wanted our girls just as much as I did.

You allowed his voice to have meaning, the state didn't. Legally, he
has no position in the decision. What would have been the result had
you discovered an unplanned pregnancy and he definitely didn't want a
child but you did?


It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a
drunk driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk
driver to drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current
situation is like putting the passenger in jail and allowing the
driver to just walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men likened
to passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices women
make.




The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options
to women and allowing them to choose their level of
responsibility, if any at all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos
responsibility whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix
that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable
of making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral
responsibility in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If family
courts fight to give women the majority of the options now, what
makes you think you could **ever** get things changed to women being
the ones being screwed by the law and men having all the choices?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men and
for several reasons, the primary one being it would require them to
give up the legal superiority they've managed to obtain. Still, women
don't become pregnant by osmosis, superstition or religious beliefs.
The problem is that both parents are responsible for a pregnancy,
planned or not but only women have a choice. Giving both the same
choice does not put any more responsibility on women, it just makes
them responsible for the choices they make and removes the ability to
place responsiblity on the man.


The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both. If
women can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father should
have the same ability in the same time period to make the same
decision to abort his responsibility toward a child he doesn't
want. Then make both parents truly equal (in responsibility and
authority) of any born children. This would also require some new
laws such as a mother that in any way hides the birth of a child
from the father should not be able to sue for child support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities. Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and Motherhood
being equally important in the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris.
I see a father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual". And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess
what else, according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris.
Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has
responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her
choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment
neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond
conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is
and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and
they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter
any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house
payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no
legal responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us
made the choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged,
pleaded or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice
is yours and yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally
subvert?

But I **didn't**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have in
this matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision; either
way, the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you
still had legal options.

And continue to do so each and every day. Just because the law says
I could do otherwise does not mean that I would disgrace myself in
such a way.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the legal
options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.
Many women change their minds and disregard their husband's wishes.
What *you* would do doesn't help those men at all.

And there are many of us who feel the exact same way! I even know
quite a number of divorced couples who would not **dream** of
subjugating their children to the idiocy of fighting over who is the
most important parent.

This NG exists because many would and do.
I sometimes wonder which is the larger number; those who do right or
those who are greedy and selfish.

Honor still means something to most people.

I'm not sure I agree. I think greed and false pride has replaced
honor.

We just happen to be caust up in a system that is run by slimeballs,
and it is easy to forget that most people would be shocked if they
ever really knew what is going onm and paid for by their hard-earned
tax dollars.

People don't care as long as they have "reality TV shows" like
"Biggest Loser", "Survivor" until reality shows up on their doorstep.
I was the same way.


The only way this could be true is if his desire to produce and
have a child was legally binding on you in any form or fashion OR
he had the ability to deny responsibility for the child.

But, again, you are just looking at the slimey system--not at the
honor and dignity that are the biggest part of our commitment to
each other and our children.

You have far more faith in people than I.

There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to be part
of. Just because they are available does not mean that we should be
held responsible for what "might be done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices they
make and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since men have
no legal options beyond conception and women do, the sole
responsiblity for the women's decision should be women's. The
alternative is giving men the same or similar options, which even out
the responsibility or remove the special options of women putting
them on the same plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the rights
you allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children.
That is far more important than the idiot laws that produce
possibilities that we would never consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on all
those who were legally bound to accept the choice they were not
allowed to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never steal,
we don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not change
anything.





Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as
any different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with
children result in the custody the mother chooses along with a
promise of a monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him equal
responsibility, even sincerely believe you are equal parents but
legally, you are not and never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want
that I am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you
are WRONG. You are far too jaded, and need to take a step back and
realize that there are still decent, caring people in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does
not have any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate
and even that doesn't always work thanks to the courts). Regardless
the fact that you regard this choice as a joint decision, 100% of
the legal rights remain yours and yours alone even if you CHOSE not
to enforce them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important than
personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a residential
street should be more important than the law that says you should
drive 25 or less?
You are apparently assuming that most people do what is right, I
disagree. I DO believe that someone who will make the right choice
will not be bothered by a law that makes others do what is right.

There ARE many, many good and honorable people out there who will
**never** avail themselves of the legal rights you speak of, but you
seem to be tarring all women with the same brush.

Many people don't get drunk and drive but it is still illegal, *even
for those who don't drink*.
Many people won't steal but it's still illegal *even for those who
would never steal*.
Does making an action illegal make any difference to those who would
never commit the action?


Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I
didn't.

But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter WHICH
choice you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual
choice was YOU.

NO, Phil, the choice was OURS, and we made it together.

No, that's where you're wrong.
You gave his input meaning. His 'choice' to have a child was wholly
dependent on you, either way.

So? Why is this so important to you? Do you really think that all
women are so shallow that they have their "legal rights" uppermost
in their minds, and are just waiting for an opportunity to harm
their husbands?

It doesn't matter whether they are just waiting for the opportunity,
removing the opportunity provides protection to those who need it.
It won't affect the honest and upright. It's important to me because
it affects me and will affect my children. I want the same protection
for my sons that would be afforded to my daughters (if I'd had any).



You were under no legal obligation to produce a child regardless
how badly he wanted one and he would be responsible for any child
he produced that he didn't want. That you allowed his opinion to
have the meaning you ascribed to it was still not legally binding
in any manner.

There you are with the "legal" again. I don't live my life with
that as my primary focus.

Sure you do. That you would not rob or steal does not invalidate the
fact that it is illegal for YOU to do so. You don't even think about
the fact that it is illegal for you to steal because you wouldn't do
it anyway. However, some, in fact many, would. While you would not
steal, the law protects your property whether you think about it or
not.
Would you pay the mother of your husband's child the same amount if
not forced by law or would you rather actually support the child in
question?
Would you pay the same income tax if not forced by law?
Without a law permitting it, (actually a Constitutional amendment
which is a law) you could not vote.
If you stop at a stop sign even when you can see there is no other
traffic, you are only obeying the law because there is no *other*
reason to stop.
The laws affect you every day of your life and in most of the things
you do, even if you don't actually think about it and despite the
fact that you would not do othewise even without a law.






So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have,
and have loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?

With authority should come an equal responsibility. Unilateral
choice deserves unilateral responsibilty.

Now you are being unfair, and telling men that they can lie to
women, marry them with no intention of ever being there for any
children that come along, get them pregnant and walk away--all the
nasty things you object to women doing you WANT men to be able to
do. Is that truly how you want things to be?

No, you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
I'm saying that responsibility should be equal to one's choices.
If anyone has unilateral choices, they should have unilateral
responsiblilty for those choices.

But, Phil, men will **never** be able to bear children--any more
than women can create a child withou at leas some small help from a
man. That is the biology if it. Do you really think it would be
right for all women everywhere to always be 100% responsible for
every child, with men **never** having any responsibility for where
they sow their seed?

Take your pick. Either men should have options that are equal to that
of women or women should have responsibilty equal to that of men.



This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after
the birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet
were forced to continue to support them because that is what
the children were accustomed to, not that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.

It doesn't seem much different to me. I was supposed to be a
father to my sons however when my last one was 2, I was suddenly
nothing but a stranger that had the responsibility to pay his
mother.

And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be changed
in the system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We
need balance and fairness.

Exactly!!!!!!


I could not
legally do anything other than "visit" him 4 days a month. I had
no authority over his environment, religion, association with
other children, vacations, dress, medical exams, etc. because the
divorce and custody "agreement" gave her "complete custody and
control" while giving me a set and unwavering amount of money to
pay her to do with as she wished. It was all very typical.
Where was MY decision to be a father?

That was wrong. That is what needs to be faought against and
changed.


Agreed but it's all tied together.



Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same
time limit as the mother but currently he has none and it is
unlikely he will ever get any.

I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I
talk to a lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in
attitudes toward fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of
things to come.

I hope you're right.

Me, too, Phil. This year 90% of my students are from
never-divorced, 2-parent homes. The highest percentage I've had
in years.

That is strikingly odd when so many children are from divorced or
never-married families.

Yes, it is the best year yet for intact homes. A decade ago it fell
at around 50% I do think the tide is changing.

Too bad it is only for such a small section of society.
The rest of the country apparently hasn't changed.

I'm just going to answer this all right here rather than inline. The
fact is that most days I don't even stop to think about what is legal
and what is not because I live my life by a moral code that goes
beyond what legal says is ok.

It is when the law forces one to ignore their own morality that is the
problem; for instance a father who wants his child born but is not given
that chance or the man who wants to raise his child as he sees fit
instead of being forced into paying someone to raise them in a manner
that he feels is not proper or being given set times to visit ones own
child, etc.

I think the vast majority of people are the same way.

I think I disagree. I think the vast majority of people are dishonest
and unscrupulous; only a few with morals that are not based on TV
commercials or sitcoms.

The law against murder is not something that I even think about even
when I am angry at someone because it is not something it would occur
to me to do. My dad always said that the laws are in place to protect
honest people from people who, without the lawe, would harm them.

Basically, that is what the law is SUPPOSED to do but it has gone beyond
that and entered into the realm of protecting us from our own choices by
disallowing choices and is active in far more than "family law". The US
is a nation of laws, not morals.

I see that with child support issues, too. Most people will never be
harmed by these laws. 50% of marriages are still successful, and, of
those who divorce, not all use the system--only some do.

I think you're forgetting that 1/3 of all parents are never married.
That's 30% on top of the 50% that divorce.
That means that something like 80% are in line to be involved with the
system and a large percentage of those will be.
I think it may be well over 50%.

Had we known about my husband's daughter earlier, we would undoubtedly
have sought custody.

Still it would be a gamble. Courts are very unwilling to take children
away from the mother but will on occasion do so if it is legally
expedient to do so (not necessarily in the best interests of the child).
After just a couple of months, the courts are almost totally unwilling
to upset the child's lifestyle even if the end result would be an
improvement but above it all, she was given freely what you would have
had to fight and pay large sums of money to try to attain. This is part
of the problem: fathers are considered to be expendable in any and all
cases; only their money is necessary.

That is probably why they waited so long--they wanted the CS back to
birth with no fear of losing custody. To bad they got caught out when
the law changed to only permit arrearages 2 years back from proof of
paternity. The law worked *for* us that time.

The law limited the amount of screwing you got, it didn't work "for"
you, it just worked against you less.
Personally, I don't think there should be ANY arrearage in this case, in
fact, it should have been illegal for her to fail to notify him with a
loss of custody and jail time.

Would we have paid the same amount? Certainly not to the mother--but
undoubtedly we would have provided more to her ourselves. As it was,
when she asked for something, we had to tell her to ask her mother to
pay for it from the child support--we couldn't do both.

And this is true very often. It was for me. Sadly, the law doesn't care,
not about you and not about the child.


I think that the people who grab our attention most of the time are
the selfish, the greedy, the victim wannabes. But I think that the
vast majority of people are good, kind, caring, and honest.
Unfortunately, it seems to be the government's job to beat those
traits out of people. I don't want to live and die by the letter of
the law. I far prefer the spirit of the law--and I think that most
everyone else does, too. I thinkt it's tragic that you and your
children missed so much of each other during their growing up years
because their mother was weak and chose greed over good. But that is
what the system teaches.

I hope you are right but I hold the opposite conclusion. I think the
current system (political, not just C$) has destroyed the America I
learned about in the 50's and 60's.
An example: my mother went in for hip replacement. The surgery went well
and she was admitted into a rehabilitation hospital for a few weeks. Due
to her hip problems in the first place, she had "drop foot", a condition
where she walked on her toes on one foot which resulted in her right
foot being always extended. She was fitted with a brace to correct this
situation... then the problems started.
On two occasions she was dropped from the bed by an orderly who was
attempting to help her out of bed for a shower (same orderly and alone
both times). Both times resulted in dislocation of the new artificial
hip, the second time the doctor said it would never stay and she was too
weak (from the first surgery) to replace the new hip at that time. The
brace to correct her "drop foot" was overlooked and not removed for
several days (was supposed to be removed each night) resulting in
infection that turned to gangrene due to poor circulation, which
resulted in her leg being amputated. She remained bedfast for years
until she finally died at the age of 95.
She flatly refused to even consider suing anyone over any of this
because her morals were that none of it was intentional and she assumed
that everyone involved actually cared. It was, to her, just a couple of
accidents. How many people in the same situation today would NOT sue
everyone in sight?

When I hear of instances such as a woman who drove through ice and snow
to Wal-Mart then slipped on the parking lot sued Wal-Mart for failing to
remove the ice and snow from the lot, like she was unaware there was ice
and snow everywhere, it makes my blood boil.
Or instances like yours where the mother intentionally hides the birth
of a child from the father then gets to punish him for her actions or a
father being named as a pedophile in order to gain the upper hand in
divorce or custody...
I have completely lost faith in the American people. They believe what
they are presented on TV and facts are irrelevant.

How many people actually believe all the hype about the proposed danger
of tobacco?
Most.
How many have actually done any independent research or even given it
any independent thought?
Almost none.

The book 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are becoming reality more every day.
Phil #3

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a
drunk driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk
driver to drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current
situation is like putting the passenger in jail and allowing the
driver to just walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men likened to
passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices women make.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an accurate one.
The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not. Not only that, but the
woman does not "just walk away." She has the child to care for. And I do
believe that, if the passenger permitted the driver to drive drunk they
might find themselves with some legal issues of their own.

As much as I disagree with today's system, I don't see it as being the
women's fault. They might go along with it, and take advantage of it--but it
is the politicians and judges who are responsible for it. And that is where
the figth needs to be--not with individual women, or even women in general.





The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to
women and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if
any at all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable of
making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral
responsibility in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If family
courts fight to give women the majority of the options now, what makes
you think you could **ever** get things changed to women being the ones
being screwed by the law and men having all the choices?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men and for
several reasons, the primary one being it would require them to give up
the legal superiority they've managed to obtain. Still, women don't
become pregnant by osmosis, superstition or religious beliefs. The
problem is that both parents are responsible for a pregnancy, planned or
not but only women have a choice. Giving both the same choice does not
put any more responsibility on women, it just makes them responsible for
the choices they make and removes the ability to place responsiblity on
the man.


The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both. If
women can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father should have
the same ability in the same time period to make the same decision to
abort his responsibility toward a child he doesn't want. Then make
both parents truly equal (in responsibility and authority) of any born
children. This would also require some new laws such as a mother that
in any way hides the birth of a child from the father should not be
able to sue for child support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities. Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and Motherhood
being equally important in the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I
see a father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual". And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what
else, according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility.
She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or
even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is
available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is
responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she
allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they
are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more.
You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house
payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal
responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made
the choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged,
pleaded or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is
yours and yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally
subvert?

But I **didn't**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have in this
matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision; either
way, the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you still
had legal options.

And continue to do so each and every day. Just because the law says I
could do otherwise does not mean that I would disgrace myself in such a
way.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the legal
options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.

This is where I most vehemently disagree with you, Phil! THAT is NOT the
problem. The problem is that people are so spineless these days that they
will not stand up and say NO. Instead they stand there with there hands
outstretched, saying "For me?? Wow! Look how Big Daddy Gubmint takes care
of me!" never bothering to think about how they have sold their souls to
get what is being handed to them, refusing to think about the fact that it
is the blood, sweat, and tears of their fellow countrymen that they are
consuming like pablum. It isn't just the CS system--it is every government
system we have!

snip for length

There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to be part
of. Just because they are available does not mean that we should be held
responsible for what "might be done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices they make
and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since men have no legal
options beyond conception and women do, the sole responsiblity for the
women's decision should be women's. The alternative is giving men the
same or similar options, which even out the responsibility or remove the
special options of women putting them on the same plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the rights you
allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children. That is
far more important than the idiot laws that produce possibilities that
we would never consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on all
those who were legally bound to accept the choice they were not allowed
to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never steal, we
don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not change
anything.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that saying that men
should be able to walk away scot free is the way to go. I think that
holding *women* more accountable is the way to go.

Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any
different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with
children result in the custody the mother chooses along with a
promise of a monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him equal
responsibility, even sincerely believe you are equal parents but
legally, you are not and never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want
that I am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you
are WRONG. You are far too jaded, and need to take a step back and
realize that there are still decent, caring people in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does not
have any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate and even
that doesn't always work thanks to the courts). Regardless the fact
that you regard this choice as a joint decision, 100% of the legal
rights remain yours and yours alone even if you CHOSE not to enforce
them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important than
personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a residential
street should be more important than the law that says you should drive
25 or less?

Uh, no. I'm saying that you are incorrect in saying that men have no right
of choice about being parents. Many, many men make that choice, and raise
their children with no problems, no government interference. The fact that
the law would back the woman's right to choose were the law consulted does
not matter. The choice made by the parents is the only thing that matters
because the law is not consulted.


snip for length


I'm just going to answer this all right here rather than inline. The
fact is that most days I don't even stop to think about what is legal and
what is not because I live my life by a moral code that goes beyond what
legal says is ok.

It is when the law forces one to ignore their own morality that is the
problem; for instance a father who wants his child born but is not given
that chance or the man who wants to raise his child as he sees fit instead
of being forced into paying someone to raise them in a manner that he
feels is not proper or being given set times to visit ones own child, etc.

It is at that point, when the law is consulted on the issue, that the law
kicks in. And the law is wrong.


I think the vast majority of people are the same way.

I think I disagree. I think the vast majority of people are dishonest and
unscrupulous; only a few with morals that are not based on TV commercials
or sitcoms.

I guess I'm seeing something different--I think the tide is turning.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a
drunk driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk
driver to drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current
situation is like putting the passenger in jail and allowing the
driver to just walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men
likened to passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices women
make.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not. Not
only that, but the woman does not "just walk away." She has the child
to care for. And I do believe that, if the passenger permitted the
driver to drive drunk they might find themselves with some legal
issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose, which is
the crux of the matter: women have choices, men have responsibility
which is part of women's choices. She only has a child if she 1) decided
to allow it to be born AND; 2) decided to keep it. The father MIGHT be
able to keep his child if 1) the mother doesn't decide to abort it AND;
2) either the mother or the court gives him permission. (You might want
to check the laws in your area, a passenger cannot be charged for
allowing a drunk to drive unless they own or control the car and know
the driver is intoxicated. Civil law is different, of course. Under
civil law, anyone can be sued for anything).


As much as I disagree with today's system, I don't see it as being the
women's fault. They might go along with it, and take advantage of
it--but it is the politicians and judges who are responsible for it.
And that is where the figth needs to be--not with individual women, or
even women in general.


I agree but the first problem is education. Most self-proclaimed
feminists are totally ignorant of the facts surrounding "family law".
They get their information from sources like N.O.W. or similar sexist
organization and believe it all to be true. Many people are ignorant of
the true happenings of "family law" because it is unbelievable until it
happens to us personally.
You are correct that politicians and judges are responsible modern
feminism has gained much political power and a lot of control over the
legislator and judges. They even have groups that watch judges for
rulings that are not pro-woman and react accordingly when one is
discovered. Their propaganda machine outdoes Goebbels.
I don't have a fight with women in general, only those specific ones who
are so selfish as to take advantage of the situation such as abortion or
the current divorce, custody, child support and other "family laws",
rules and regulations. To me, they are sociopaths.





The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options
to women and allowing them to choose their level of
responsibility, if any at all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos
responsibility whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix
that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable
of making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral
responsibility in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If family
courts fight to give women the majority of the options now, what
makes you think you could **ever** get things changed to women
being the ones being screwed by the law and men having all the
choices?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men and
for several reasons, the primary one being it would require them to
give up the legal superiority they've managed to obtain. Still,
women don't become pregnant by osmosis, superstition or religious
beliefs. The problem is that both parents are responsible for a
pregnancy, planned or not but only women have a choice. Giving both
the same choice does not put any more responsibility on women, it
just makes them responsible for the choices they make and removes
the ability to place responsiblity on the man.


The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both.
If women can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father
should have the same ability in the same time period to make the
same decision to abort his responsibility toward a child he
doesn't want. Then make both parents truly equal (in
responsibility and authority) of any born children. This would
also require some new laws such as a mother that in any way hides
the birth of a child from the father should not be able to sue
for child support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities. Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and
Motherhood being equally important in the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris.
I see a father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual". And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess
what else, according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply
follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris.
Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has
responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her
choices by abortion or even after birth by legal
abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no
choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if
SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and
they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter
any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice"
forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house
payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no
legal responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us
made the choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged,
pleaded or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice
is yours and yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally
subvert?

But I **didn't**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have in
this matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision;
either way, the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you
still had legal options.

And continue to do so each and every day. Just because the law
says I could do otherwise does not mean that I would disgrace
myself in such a way.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the legal
options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.

This is where I most vehemently disagree with you, Phil! THAT is NOT
the problem. The problem is that people are so spineless these days
that they will not stand up and say NO. Instead they stand there with
there hands outstretched, saying "For me?? Wow! Look how Big Daddy
Gubmint takes care of me!" never bothering to think about how they
have sold their souls to get what is being handed to them, refusing to
think about the fact that it is the blood, sweat, and tears of their
fellow countrymen that they are consuming like pablum. It isn't just
the CS system--it is every government system we have!

I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women have
choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was speaking about
the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities of family law. I can
find many problems that are just as important in other areas but that
isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had options beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any of them, it
was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his desire. That means
you had other options, he was left with your choice. The fact that his
choice and your choice were identical means nothing in regard to which
of you had choice. THAT is the problem I have been discussing.
In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We have met
the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in "family law". Few
people are even half-aware of the dealings of legislators and judges
until they find themselves in the situation, primarily because of the
propaganda that overshadows the truth. When the matra is "in the best
interests of the children", most seem to actually believe it is without
bothering to check. When someone points out the facts, they are accused
of sour grapes.


snip for length

There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to be
part of. Just because they are available does not mean that we
should be held responsible for what "might be done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices they
make and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since men
have no legal options beyond conception and women do, the sole
responsiblity for the women's decision should be women's. The
alternative is giving men the same or similar options, which even
out the responsibility or remove the special options of women
putting them on the same plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the
rights you allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children.
That is far more important than the idiot laws that produce
possibilities that we would never consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on all
those who were legally bound to accept the choice they were not
allowed to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never
steal, we don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not
change anything.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that saying
that men should be able to walk away scot free is the way to go. I
think that holding *women* more accountable is the way to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of which
is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks any choice
of his own.
How can that be changed?


Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen
as any different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with
children result in the custody the mother chooses along with a
promise of a monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him
equal responsibility, even sincerely believe you are equal
parents but legally, you are not and never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you
want that I am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children,
but you are WRONG. You are far too jaded, and need to take a
step back and realize that there are still decent, caring people
in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does
not have any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate
and even that doesn't always work thanks to the courts).
Regardless the fact that you regard this choice as a joint
decision, 100% of the legal rights remain yours and yours alone
even if you CHOSE not to enforce them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important
than personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a residential
street should be more important than the law that says you should
drive 25 or less?

Uh, no. I'm saying that you are incorrect in saying that men have no
right of choice about being parents. Many, many men make that choice,
and raise their children with no problems, no government interference.
The fact that the law would back the woman's right to choose were the
law consulted does not matter. The choice made by the parents is the
only thing that matters because the law is not consulted.

This is the same thing as saying as long as I drive under the speed
limit, there is no need for a speed limit.

What is a man's options in regard to becoming, or his continued being, a
parent? (Other than deciding to engage in sexual activity, which may or
may not be indicative of wishing to be a parent).




snip for length


I'm just going to answer this all right here rather than inline.
The fact is that most days I don't even stop to think about what is
legal and what is not because I live my life by a moral code that
goes beyond what legal says is ok.

It is when the law forces one to ignore their own morality that is
the problem; for instance a father who wants his child born but is
not given that chance or the man who wants to raise his child as he
sees fit instead of being forced into paying someone to raise them in
a manner that he feels is not proper or being given set times to
visit ones own child, etc.

It is at that point, when the law is consulted on the issue, that the
law kicks in. And the law is wrong.

So how do you propose to make the law right?
Phil #3




I think the vast majority of people are the same way.

I think I disagree. I think the vast majority of people are dishonest
and unscrupulous; only a few with morals that are not based on TV
commercials or sitcoms.

I guess I'm seeing something different--I think the tide is turning.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a
drunk driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk
driver to drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current
situation is like putting the passenger in jail and allowing the
driver to just walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men likened
to
passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices women
make.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an accurate
one.
The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not. Not only that, but the
woman does not "just walk away." She has the child to care for. And I do
believe that, if the passenger permitted the driver to drive drunk they
might find themselves with some legal issues of their own.

His guess was correct; you DON'T understand analogies.


As much as I disagree with today's system, I don't see it as being the
women's fault. They might go along with it, and take advantage of it--but
it
is the politicians and judges who are responsible for it. And that is
where
the figth needs to be--not with individual women, or even women in
general.

The fight, for those willing to take the risk, needs to be against EVERYONE
involved in the extortion. And guess what; this includes the women.






The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to
women and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility,
if
any at all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable of
making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral
responsibility in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If family
courts fight to give women the majority of the options now, what
makes
you think you could **ever** get things changed to women being the
ones
being screwed by the law and men having all the choices?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men and for
several reasons, the primary one being it would require them to give
up
the legal superiority they've managed to obtain. Still, women don't
become pregnant by osmosis, superstition or religious beliefs. The
problem is that both parents are responsible for a pregnancy, planned
or
not but only women have a choice. Giving both the same choice does not
put any more responsibility on women, it just makes them responsible
for
the choices they make and removes the ability to place responsiblity
on
the man.


The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both. If
women can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father should
have
the same ability in the same time period to make the same decision
to
abort his responsibility toward a child he doesn't want. Then make
both parents truly equal (in responsibility and authority) of any
born
children. This would also require some new laws such as a mother
that
in any way hides the birth of a child from the father should not be
able to sue for child support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities. Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and Motherhood
being equally important in the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I
see a father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual". And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what
else, according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has
responsibility.
She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion
or
even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is
available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is
responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent
she
allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and
they
are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any
more.
You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house
payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal
responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made
the choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged,
pleaded or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is
yours and yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally
subvert?

But I **didn't**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have in
this
matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision; either
way, the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you still
had legal options.

And continue to do so each and every day. Just because the law says I
could do otherwise does not mean that I would disgrace myself in such
a
way.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the legal
options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.

This is where I most vehemently disagree with you, Phil! THAT is NOT the
problem. The problem is that people are so spineless these days that they
will not stand up and say NO. Instead they stand there with there hands
outstretched, saying "For me?? Wow! Look how Big Daddy Gubmint takes
care
of me!" never bothering to think about how they have sold their souls to
get what is being handed to them, refusing to think about the fact that it
is the blood, sweat, and tears of their fellow countrymen that they are
consuming like pablum. It isn't just the CS system--it is every
government
system we have!

You just agreed with him.


snip for length

There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to be part
of. Just because they are available does not mean that we should be
held
responsible for what "might be done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices they
make
and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since men have no
legal
options beyond conception and women do, the sole responsiblity for the
women's decision should be women's. The alternative is giving men the
same or similar options, which even out the responsibility or remove
the
special options of women putting them on the same plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the rights
you
allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children. That
is
far more important than the idiot laws that produce possibilities
that
we would never consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on all
those who were legally bound to accept the choice they were not
allowed
to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never steal,
we
don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not change
anything.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that saying that
men
should be able to walk away scot free is the way to go. I think that
holding *women* more accountable is the way to go.

Beginning with their SOLE choice to bear a child. 100% choice = 100%
responsibility.


Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as
any
different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with
children result in the custody the mother chooses along with a
promise of a monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him equal
responsibility, even sincerely believe you are equal parents but
legally, you are not and never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want
that I am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you
are WRONG. You are far too jaded, and need to take a step back and
realize that there are still decent, caring people in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does not
have any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate and
even
that doesn't always work thanks to the courts). Regardless the fact
that you regard this choice as a joint decision, 100% of the legal
rights remain yours and yours alone even if you CHOSE not to enforce
them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important than
personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a residential
street should be more important than the law that says you should
drive
25 or less?

Uh, no. I'm saying that you are incorrect in saying that men have no
right
of choice about being parents. Many, many men make that choice, and raise
their children with no problems, no government interference. The fact
that
the law would back the woman's right to choose were the law consulted does
not matter. The choice made by the parents is the only thing that matters
because the law is not consulted.

The law is not consulted because the woman chose to not consult the law. You
have consistently claimed that men make the choice (to bear children), yet
have never supported your claim.



snip for length


I'm just going to answer this all right here rather than inline. The
fact is that most days I don't even stop to think about what is legal
and
what is not because I live my life by a moral code that goes beyond
what
legal says is ok.

It is when the law forces one to ignore their own morality that is the
problem; for instance a father who wants his child born but is not given
that chance or the man who wants to raise his child as he sees fit
instead
of being forced into paying someone to raise them in a manner that he
feels is not proper or being given set times to visit ones own child,
etc.

It is at that point, when the law is consulted on the issue, that the law
kicks in. And the law is wrong.


I think the vast majority of people are the same way.

I think I disagree. I think the vast majority of people are dishonest
and
unscrupulous; only a few with morals that are not based on TV
commercials
or sitcoms.

I guess I'm seeing something different--I think the tide is turning.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
[Anyone that's good enough to make a car payment is good enough to have the
car]
..
..
"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a
drunk driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk
driver to drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current
situation is like putting the passenger in jail and allowing the
driver to just walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men
likened to passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices women
make.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not. Not
only that, but the woman does not "just walk away." She has the child
to care for. And I do believe that, if the passenger permitted the
driver to drive drunk they might find themselves with some legal
issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose, which is
the crux of the matter: women have choices, men have responsibility
which is part of women's choices. She only has a child if she 1) decided
to allow it to be born AND; 2) decided to keep it. The father MIGHT be
able to keep his child if 1) the mother doesn't decide to abort it AND;
2) either the mother or the court gives him permission. (You might want
to check the laws in your area, a passenger cannot be charged for
allowing a drunk to drive unless they own or control the car and know
the driver is intoxicated. Civil law is different, of course. Under
civil law, anyone can be sued for anything).

And judges REGULARLY legislate from the bench.



As much as I disagree with today's system, I don't see it as being the
women's fault. They might go along with it, and take advantage of
it--but it is the politicians and judges who are responsible for it.
And that is where the figth needs to be--not with individual women, or
even women in general.


I agree but the first problem is education. Most self-proclaimed
feminists are totally ignorant of the facts surrounding "family law".
They get their information from sources like N.O.W. or similar sexist
organization and believe it all to be true. Many people are ignorant of
the true happenings of "family law" because it is unbelievable until it
happens to us personally.
You are correct that politicians and judges are responsible modern
feminism has gained much political power and a lot of control over the
legislator and judges. They even have groups that watch judges for
rulings that are not pro-woman and react accordingly when one is
discovered. Their propaganda machine outdoes Goebbels.
I don't have a fight with women in general, only those specific ones who
are so selfish as to take advantage of the situation such as abortion or
the current divorce, custody, child support and other "family laws",
rules and regulations. To me, they are sociopaths.

Now THAT'S an understatement.






The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options
to women and allowing them to choose their level of
responsibility, if any at all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos
responsibility whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix
that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable
of making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral
responsibility in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If family
courts fight to give women the majority of the options now, what
makes you think you could **ever** get things changed to women
being the ones being screwed by the law and men having all the
choices?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men and
for several reasons, the primary one being it would require them to
give up the legal superiority they've managed to obtain. Still,
women don't become pregnant by osmosis, superstition or religious
beliefs. The problem is that both parents are responsible for a
pregnancy, planned or not but only women have a choice. Giving both
the same choice does not put any more responsibility on women, it
just makes them responsible for the choices they make and removes
the ability to place responsiblity on the man.


The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both.
If women can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father
should have the same ability in the same time period to make the
same decision to abort his responsibility toward a child he
doesn't want. Then make both parents truly equal (in
responsibility and authority) of any born children. This would
also require some new laws such as a mother that in any way hides
the birth of a child from the father should not be able to sue
for child support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities. Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and
Motherhood being equally important in the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris.
I see a father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual". And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess
what else, according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply
follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris.
Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has
responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her
choices by abortion or even after birth by legal
abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no
choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if
SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and
they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter
any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice"
forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house
payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no
legal responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us
made the choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged,
pleaded or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice
is yours and yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally
subvert?

But I **didn't**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have in
this matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision;
either way, the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you
still had legal options.

And continue to do so each and every day. Just because the law
says I could do otherwise does not mean that I would disgrace
myself in such a way.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the legal
options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.

This is where I most vehemently disagree with you, Phil! THAT is NOT
the problem. The problem is that people are so spineless these days
that they will not stand up and say NO. Instead they stand there with
there hands outstretched, saying "For me?? Wow! Look how Big Daddy
Gubmint takes care of me!" never bothering to think about how they
have sold their souls to get what is being handed to them, refusing to
think about the fact that it is the blood, sweat, and tears of their
fellow countrymen that they are consuming like pablum. It isn't just
the CS system--it is every government system we have!

I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women have
choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was speaking about
the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities of family law. I can
find many problems that are just as important in other areas but that
isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had options beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any of them, it
was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his desire. That means
you had other options, he was left with your choice. The fact that his
choice and your choice were identical means nothing in regard to which
of you had choice. THAT is the problem I have been discussing.
In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We have met
the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in "family law". Few
people are even half-aware of the dealings of legislators and judges
until they find themselves in the situation, primarily because of the
propaganda that overshadows the truth. When the matra is "in the best
interests of the children", most seem to actually believe it is without
bothering to check. When someone points out the facts, they are accused
of sour grapes.

Or of living in a "bitter little world".



snip for length

There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to be
part of. Just because they are available does not mean that we
should be held responsible for what "might be done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices they
make and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since men
have no legal options beyond conception and women do, the sole
responsiblity for the women's decision should be women's. The
alternative is giving men the same or similar options, which even
out the responsibility or remove the special options of women
putting them on the same plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the
rights you allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children.
That is far more important than the idiot laws that produce
possibilities that we would never consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on all
those who were legally bound to accept the choice they were not
allowed to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never
steal, we don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not
change anything.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that saying
that men should be able to walk away scot free is the way to go. I
think that holding *women* more accountable is the way to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of which
is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks any choice
of his own.
How can that be changed?


Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen
as any different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with
children result in the custody the mother chooses along with a
promise of a monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him
equal responsibility, even sincerely believe you are equal
parents but legally, you are not and never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you
want that I am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children,
but you are WRONG. You are far too jaded, and need to take a
step back and realize that there are still decent, caring people
in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does
not have any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate
and even that doesn't always work thanks to the courts).
Regardless the fact that you regard this choice as a joint
decision, 100% of the legal rights remain yours and yours alone
even if you CHOSE not to enforce them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important
than personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a residential
street should be more important than the law that says you should
drive 25 or less?

Uh, no. I'm saying that you are incorrect in saying that men have no
right of choice about being parents. Many, many men make that choice,
and raise their children with no problems, no government interference.
The fact that the law would back the woman's right to choose were the
law consulted does not matter. The choice made by the parents is the
only thing that matters because the law is not consulted.

This is the same thing as saying as long as I drive under the speed
limit, there is no need for a speed limit.

What is a man's options in regard to becoming, or his continued being, a
parent? (Other than deciding to engage in sexual activity, which may or
may not be indicative of wishing to be a parent).




snip for length


I'm just going to answer this all right here rather than inline.
The fact is that most days I don't even stop to think about what is
legal and what is not because I live my life by a moral code that
goes beyond what legal says is ok.

It is when the law forces one to ignore their own morality that is
the problem; for instance a father who wants his child born but is
not given that chance or the man who wants to raise his child as he
sees fit instead of being forced into paying someone to raise them in
a manner that he feels is not proper or being given set times to
visit ones own child, etc.

It is at that point, when the law is consulted on the issue, that the
law kicks in. And the law is wrong.

So how do you propose to make the law right?
Phil #3




I think the vast majority of people are the same way.

I think I disagree. I think the vast majority of people are dishonest
and unscrupulous; only a few with morals that are not based on TV
commercials or sitcoms.

I guess I'm seeing something different--I think the tide is turning.

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a
drunk driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk
driver to drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current
situation is like putting the passenger in jail and allowing the
driver to just walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men likened
to passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices women
make.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an accurate
one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not. Not only that,
but the woman does not "just walk away." She has the child to care for.
And I do believe that, if the passenger permitted the driver to drive
drunk they might find themselves with some legal issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal responsibility for
the child either. If she aborts, he has no responsibility. If she legally
abandons, he has no responsibility. If she does not tell him about the
child and adopts it out he has no legal responsibility. So it isn't as if
the drunk gets off and the passenger pays.

which is
the crux of the matter: women have choices, men have responsibility which
is part of women's choices. She only has a child if she 1) decided to
allow it to be born AND; 2) decided to keep it. The father MIGHT be able
to keep his child if 1) the mother doesn't decide to abort it AND; 2)
either the mother or the court gives him permission. (You might want to
check the laws in your area, a passenger cannot be charged for allowing a
drunk to drive unless they own or control the car and know the driver is
intoxicated. Civil law is different, of course. Under civil law, anyone
can be sued for anything).

I know the law is unfair to men, I just don't think the drunk analogy is a
good one.



As much as I disagree with today's system, I don't see it as being the
women's fault. They might go along with it, and take advantage of it--but
it is the politicians and judges who are responsible for it. And that is
where the figth needs to be--not with individual women, or even women in
general.


I agree but the first problem is education. Most self-proclaimed feminists
are totally ignorant of the facts surrounding "family law". They get their
information from sources like N.O.W. or similar sexist organization and
believe it all to be true. Many people are ignorant of the true happenings
of "family law" because it is unbelievable until it happens to us
personally.
You are correct that politicians and judges are responsible modern
feminism has gained much political power and a lot of control over the
legislator and judges. They even have groups that watch judges for rulings
that are not pro-woman and react accordingly when one is discovered. Their
propaganda machine outdoes Goebbels.
I don't have a fight with women in general, only those specific ones who
are so selfish as to take advantage of the situation such as abortion or
the current divorce, custody, child support and other "family laws", rules
and regulations. To me, they are sociopaths.

I agree totally.






The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to
women and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility,
if any at all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable of
making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral
responsibility in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If family
courts fight to give women the majority of the options now, what
makes you think you could **ever** get things changed to women being
the ones being screwed by the law and men having all the choices?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men and for
several reasons, the primary one being it would require them to give
up the legal superiority they've managed to obtain. Still, women don't
become pregnant by osmosis, superstition or religious beliefs. The
problem is that both parents are responsible for a pregnancy, planned
or not but only women have a choice. Giving both the same choice does
not put any more responsibility on women, it just makes them
responsible for the choices they make and removes the ability to place
responsiblity on the man.


The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both. If
women can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father should
have the same ability in the same time period to make the same
decision to abort his responsibility toward a child he doesn't want.
Then make both parents truly equal (in responsibility and authority)
of any born children. This would also require some new laws such as
a mother that in any way hides the birth of a child from the father
should not be able to sue for child support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities. Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and Motherhood
being equally important in the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I
see a father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual". And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what
else, according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has
responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her
choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment
neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond
conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is
and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and
they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any
more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house
payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal
responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made
the choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged,
pleaded or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is
yours and yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally
subvert?

But I **didn't**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have in
this matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision; either
way, the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you still
had legal options.

And continue to do so each and every day. Just because the law says I
could do otherwise does not mean that I would disgrace myself in such
a way.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the legal
options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.

This is where I most vehemently disagree with you, Phil! THAT is NOT the
problem. The problem is that people are so spineless these days that
they will not stand up and say NO. Instead they stand there with there
hands outstretched, saying "For me?? Wow! Look how Big Daddy Gubmint
takes care of me!" never bothering to think about how they have sold
their souls to get what is being handed to them, refusing to think about
the fact that it is the blood, sweat, and tears of their fellow
countrymen that they are consuming like pablum. It isn't just the CS
system--it is every government system we have!

I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women have
choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was speaking about the
sexism of reproductive choices and abilities of family law. I can find
many problems that are just as important in other areas but that isn't
what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and your husband
deciding to have a child was that you had options beyond conception, he
did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any of them, it was YOUR choice,
which was legally independent of his desire. That means you had other
options, he was left with your choice. The fact that his choice and your
choice were identical means nothing in regard to which of you had choice.
THAT is the problem I have been discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't agree that,
because that choice is legally available, that makes the choice totally
mine. WE decided together. WE are raising our children. And no law is
going to change that. And both of us know it.

In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We have met
the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in "family law". Few
people are even half-aware of the dealings of legislators and judges until
they find themselves in the situation, primarily because of the propaganda
that overshadows the truth. When the matra is "in the best interests of
the children", most seem to actually believe it is without bothering to
check. When someone points out the facts, they are accused of sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to be part
of. Just because they are available does not mean that we should be
held responsible for what "might be done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices they
make and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since men have
no legal options beyond conception and women do, the sole
responsiblity for the women's decision should be women's. The
alternative is giving men the same or similar options, which even out
the responsibility or remove the special options of women putting them
on the same plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the rights
you allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children. That
is far more important than the idiot laws that produce possibilities
that we would never consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on all
those who were legally bound to accept the choice they were not
allowed to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never steal,
we don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not change
anything.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that saying that
men should be able to walk away scot free is the way to go. I think that
holding *women* more accountable is the way to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of which is
adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks any choice of his
own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody, insisting on
being fathers to their children are making inroads. I think that the
studies showing the importance of fathers in their children's lives are
making inroads. There is more public awareness than there was, and we need
to keep that going. And it would be nice if those who were for equal
parenting and equal responsibility could get organized, and keep out the
nutjobs on the fringes of both sides of the issue so we could really make
some progress!! I think that the rising importance of fathers will take
care of the majority of the imbalance--including the "right to walk away"
scotfree.



Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as
any different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with
children result in the custody the mother chooses along with a
promise of a monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him equal
responsibility, even sincerely believe you are equal parents but
legally, you are not and never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want
that I am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you
are WRONG. You are far too jaded, and need to take a step back and
realize that there are still decent, caring people in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does not
have any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate and
even that doesn't always work thanks to the courts). Regardless the
fact that you regard this choice as a joint decision, 100% of the
legal rights remain yours and yours alone even if you CHOSE not to
enforce them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important than
personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a residential
street should be more important than the law that says you should
drive 25 or less?

Uh, no. I'm saying that you are incorrect in saying that men have no
right of choice about being parents. Many, many men make that choice,
and raise their children with no problems, no government interference.
The fact that the law would back the woman's right to choose were the law
consulted does not matter. The choice made by the parents is the only
thing that matters because the law is not consulted.

This is the same thing as saying as long as I drive under the speed limit,
there is no need for a speed limit.

What is a man's options in regard to becoming, or his continued being, a
parent? (Other than deciding to engage in sexual activity, which may or
may not be indicative of wishing to be a parent).

The speed limit is only needed for those who break it--although it applies
to all, it is only needed for those who speed.




snip for length


I'm just going to answer this all right here rather than inline. The
fact is that most days I don't even stop to think about what is legal
and what is not because I live my life by a moral code that goes beyond
what legal says is ok.

It is when the law forces one to ignore their own morality that is the
problem; for instance a father who wants his child born but is not given
that chance or the man who wants to raise his child as he sees fit
instead of being forced into paying someone to raise them in a manner
that he feels is not proper or being given set times to visit ones own
child, etc.

It is at that point, when the law is consulted on the issue, that the law
kicks in. And the law is wrong.

So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by sharing our
experiences, and encouraging education and thought on the subject--but it
will be a grassroots movement that will bring about the necessary
change--men and women who are tired of fathers being shortchanged in favor
of mothers.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by
a drunk driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the
drunk driver to drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The
current situation is like putting the passenger in jail and
allowing the driver to just walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men
likened to passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices
women make.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not. Not
only that, but the woman does not "just walk away." She has the
child to care for. And I do believe that, if the passenger permitted
the driver to drive drunk they might find themselves with some legal
issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you
don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal
responsibility for the child either. If she aborts, he has no
responsibility. If she legally abandons, he has no responsibility.
If she does not tell him about the child and adopts it out he has no
legal responsibility. So it isn't as if the drunk gets off and the
passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the driver didn't get
stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if they did get
stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the driver would be
allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be assigned a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent still has the
ability to change their responsibility.


which is
the crux of the matter: women have choices, men have responsibility
which is part of women's choices. She only has a child if she 1)
decided to allow it to be born AND; 2) decided to keep it. The father
MIGHT be able to keep his child if 1) the mother doesn't decide to
abort it AND; 2) either the mother or the court gives him permission.
(You might want to check the laws in your area, a passenger cannot be
charged for allowing a drunk to drive unless they own or control the
car and know the driver is intoxicated. Civil law is different, of
course. Under civil law, anyone can be sued for anything).

I know the law is unfair to men, I just don't think the drunk analogy
is a good one.


Perhaps not but it seems very fitting to me.



As much as I disagree with today's system, I don't see it as being
the women's fault. They might go along with it, and take advantage
of it--but it is the politicians and judges who are responsible for
it. And that is where the figth needs to be--not with individual
women, or even women in general.


I agree but the first problem is education. Most self-proclaimed
feminists are totally ignorant of the facts surrounding "family law".
They get their information from sources like N.O.W. or similar sexist
organization and believe it all to be true. Many people are ignorant
of the true happenings of "family law" because it is unbelievable
until it happens to us personally.
You are correct that politicians and judges are responsible modern
feminism has gained much political power and a lot of control over
the legislator and judges. They even have groups that watch judges
for rulings that are not pro-woman and react accordingly when one is
discovered. Their propaganda machine outdoes Goebbels.
I don't have a fight with women in general, only those specific ones
who are so selfish as to take advantage of the situation such as
abortion or the current divorce, custody, child support and other
"family laws", rules and regulations. To me, they are sociopaths.

I agree totally.






The idea that men are responsible while handing all the
options to women and allowing them to choose their level of
responsibility, if any at all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos
responsibility whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix
that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one
capable of making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve
unilateral responsibility in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If
family courts fight to give women the majority of the options
now, what makes you think you could **ever** get things changed
to women being the ones being screwed by the law and men having
all the choices?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men
and for several reasons, the primary one being it would require
them to give up the legal superiority they've managed to obtain.
Still, women don't become pregnant by osmosis, superstition or
religious beliefs. The problem is that both parents are
responsible for a pregnancy, planned or not but only women have a
choice. Giving both the same choice does not put any more
responsibility on women, it just makes them responsible for the
choices they make and removes the ability to place responsiblity
on the man.


The much better choice would be to equalize the options of
both. If women can have an abortion for any or no reason, a
father should have the same ability in the same time period to
make the same decision to abort his responsibility toward a
child he doesn't want. Then make both parents truly equal (in
responsibility and authority) of any born children. This would
also require some new laws such as a mother that in any way
hides the birth of a child from the father should not be able
to sue for child support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities. Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and
Motherhood being equally important in the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement,
Chris. I see a father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the
opposite stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual". And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess
what else, according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply
follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well,
Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways
to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has
responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her
choices by abortion or even after birth by legal
abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no
choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if
SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past,
and they are raising the children together, that doesn't
matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth
choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house
payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no
legal responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us
made the choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it,
begged, pleaded or even paid you to have a child but legally
the choice is yours and yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not
legally subvert?

But I **didn't**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have
in this matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision;
either way, the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you
still had legal options.

And continue to do so each and every day. Just because the law
says I could do otherwise does not mean that I would disgrace
myself in such a way.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the
legal options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.

This is where I most vehemently disagree with you, Phil! THAT is
NOT the problem. The problem is that people are so spineless these
days that they will not stand up and say NO. Instead they stand
there with there hands outstretched, saying "For me?? Wow! Look
how Big Daddy Gubmint takes care of me!" never bothering to think
about how they have sold their souls to get what is being handed to
them, refusing to think about the fact that it is the blood, sweat,
and tears of their fellow countrymen that they are consuming like
pablum. It isn't just the CS system--it is every government system
we have!

I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women have
choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was speaking about
the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities of family law. I can
find many problems that are just as important in other areas but that
isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had options beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any of them,
it was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his desire. That
means you had other options, he was left with your choice. The fact
that his choice and your choice were identical means nothing in
regard to which of you had choice. THAT is the problem I have been
discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't agree
that, because that choice is legally available, that makes the choice
totally mine. WE decided together. WE are raising our children. And
no law is going to change that. And both of us know it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that created my
last child; WE made the decision but for all intents and purposes, I
lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID make the decision to
change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought was a good marriage until
she discovered how much she could force me to pay her to divorce me.
Oddly, this all came about just at the end of my term of paying "child
support" to my first wife. I'm not saying YOU are dishonest but millions
of women ARE and in my case, it cost me a quarter of a million dollars
and ended my relationship with my child.


In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We have
met the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in "family law".
Few people are even half-aware of the dealings of legislators and
judges until they find themselves in the situation, primarily because
of the propaganda that overshadows the truth. When the matra is "in
the best interests of the children", most seem to actually believe it
is without bothering to check. When someone points out the facts,
they are accused of sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to be
part of. Just because they are available does not mean that we
should be held responsible for what "might be done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices
they make and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since
men have no legal options beyond conception and women do, the
sole responsiblity for the women's decision should be women's.
The alternative is giving men the same or similar options, which
even out the responsibility or remove the special options of
women putting them on the same plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the
rights you allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children.
That is far more important than the idiot laws that produce
possibilities that we would never consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on
all those who were legally bound to accept the choice they were
not allowed to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never
steal, we don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not
change anything.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that saying
that men should be able to walk away scot free is the way to go. I
think that holding *women* more accountable is the way to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of
which is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks any
choice of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making inroads. I
think that the studies showing the importance of fathers in their
children's lives are making inroads. There is more public awareness
than there was, and we need to keep that going. And it would be nice
if those who were for equal parenting and equal responsibility could
get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on the fringes of both sides
of the issue so we could really make some progress!! I think that the
rising importance of fathers will take care of the majority of the
imbalance--including the "right to walk away" scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as biologically possible,
to each parent. Both should have equal responsibility and equal options
but neither should be able to just do away with the pregnancy or child
by abortion or turning their backs on it.
The justification for making women wholly responsibility just brings to
light the disparity that currently exists between men and women. Since
women currently have 100% of all options with the ability to choose
their degree of responsibility, men should, by rights, held to a zero
degree of responsibility. That wouldn't make them incapable of wanting
to have and raise children, it would only limit their responsiblilty to
equal their legal abilities.




Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen
as any different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces
with children result in the custody the mother chooses along
with a promise of a monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give
him equal responsibility, even sincerely believe you are
equal parents but legally, you are not and never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you
want that I am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR
children, but you are WRONG. You are far too jaded, and need
to take a step back and realize that there are still decent,
caring people in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply
does not have any choices in reproduction, (except to remain
celebate and even that doesn't always work thanks to the
courts). Regardless the fact that you regard this choice as a
joint decision, 100% of the legal rights remain yours and yours
alone even if you CHOSE not to enforce them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important
than personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a
residential street should be more important than the law that
says you should drive 25 or less?

Uh, no. I'm saying that you are incorrect in saying that men have
no right of choice about being parents. Many, many men make that
choice, and raise their children with no problems, no government
interference. The fact that the law would back the woman's right to
choose were the law consulted does not matter. The choice made by
the parents is the only thing that matters because the law is not
consulted.

This is the same thing as saying as long as I drive under the speed
limit, there is no need for a speed limit.

What is a man's options in regard to becoming, or his continued
being, a parent? (Other than deciding to engage in sexual activity,
which may or may not be indicative of wishing to be a parent).

The speed limit is only needed for those who break it--although it
applies to all, it is only needed for those who speed.




snip for length


I'm just going to answer this all right here rather than inline.
The fact is that most days I don't even stop to think about what
is legal and what is not because I live my life by a moral code
that goes beyond what legal says is ok.

It is when the law forces one to ignore their own morality that is
the problem; for instance a father who wants his child born but is
not given that chance or the man who wants to raise his child as he
sees fit instead of being forced into paying someone to raise them
in a manner that he feels is not proper or being given set times to
visit ones own child, etc.

It is at that point, when the law is consulted on the issue, that
the law kicks in. And the law is wrong.

So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and thought on the
subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that will bring about
the necessary change--men and women who are tired of fathers being
shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate making women
totally responsible for their unilateral choices. It is not actually the
optimal solution but it points out the problem very well. If all it does
is gain attention and/or make people think independently, it will have
achieved something.
Phil #3

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by
a drunk driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the
drunk driver to drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The
current situation is like putting the passenger in jail and
allowing the driver to just walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men
likened to passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices
women make.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not. Not
only that, but the woman does not "just walk away." She has the
child to care for. And I do believe that, if the passenger permitted
the driver to drive drunk they might find themselves with some legal
issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you
don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal
responsibility for the child either. If she aborts, he has no
responsibility. If she legally abandons, he has no responsibility.
If she does not tell him about the child and adopts it out he has no
legal responsibility. So it isn't as if the drunk gets off and the
passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the driver didn't get
stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if they did get
stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the driver would be
allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be assigned a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent still has the
ability to change their responsibility.

Hate to break the bad news, but your comments are falling on deaf ears. This
woman is incapable of comprehending your valid point.
This is evident by the fact that her responses are either to some OTHER
issue or simply false claims.



which is
the crux of the matter: women have choices, men have responsibility
which is part of women's choices. She only has a child if she 1)
decided to allow it to be born AND; 2) decided to keep it. The father
MIGHT be able to keep his child if 1) the mother doesn't decide to
abort it AND; 2) either the mother or the court gives him permission.
(You might want to check the laws in your area, a passenger cannot be
charged for allowing a drunk to drive unless they own or control the
car and know the driver is intoxicated. Civil law is different, of
course. Under civil law, anyone can be sued for anything).

I know the law is unfair to men, I just don't think the drunk analogy
is a good one.


Perhaps not but it seems very fitting to me.

Maybe because it IS?




As much as I disagree with today's system, I don't see it as being
the women's fault. They might go along with it, and take advantage
of it--but it is the politicians and judges who are responsible for
it. And that is where the figth needs to be--not with individual
women, or even women in general.


I agree but the first problem is education. Most self-proclaimed
feminists are totally ignorant of the facts surrounding "family law".
They get their information from sources like N.O.W. or similar sexist
organization and believe it all to be true. Many people are ignorant
of the true happenings of "family law" because it is unbelievable
until it happens to us personally.
You are correct that politicians and judges are responsible modern
feminism has gained much political power and a lot of control over
the legislator and judges. They even have groups that watch judges
for rulings that are not pro-woman and react accordingly when one is
discovered. Their propaganda machine outdoes Goebbels.
I don't have a fight with women in general, only those specific ones
who are so selfish as to take advantage of the situation such as
abortion or the current divorce, custody, child support and other
"family laws", rules and regulations. To me, they are sociopaths.

I agree totally.






The idea that men are responsible while handing all the
options to women and allowing them to choose their level of
responsibility, if any at all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos
responsibility whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix
that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one
capable of making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve
unilateral responsibility in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If
family courts fight to give women the majority of the options
now, what makes you think you could **ever** get things changed
to women being the ones being screwed by the law and men having
all the choices?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men
and for several reasons, the primary one being it would require
them to give up the legal superiority they've managed to obtain.
Still, women don't become pregnant by osmosis, superstition or
religious beliefs. The problem is that both parents are
responsible for a pregnancy, planned or not but only women have a
choice. Giving both the same choice does not put any more
responsibility on women, it just makes them responsible for the
choices they make and removes the ability to place responsiblity
on the man.


The much better choice would be to equalize the options of
both. If women can have an abortion for any or no reason, a
father should have the same ability in the same time period to
make the same decision to abort his responsibility toward a
child he doesn't want. Then make both parents truly equal (in
responsibility and authority) of any born children. This would
also require some new laws such as a mother that in any way
hides the birth of a child from the father should not be able
to sue for child support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities. Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and
Motherhood being equally important in the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement,
Chris. I see a father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the
opposite stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual". And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess
what else, according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply
follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well,
Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways
to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has
responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her
choices by abortion or even after birth by legal
abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no
choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if
SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past,
and they are raising the children together, that doesn't
matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth
choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house
payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no
legal responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us
made the choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it,
begged, pleaded or even paid you to have a child but legally
the choice is yours and yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not
legally subvert?

But I **didn't**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have
in this matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision;
either way, the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you
still had legal options.

And continue to do so each and every day. Just because the law
says I could do otherwise does not mean that I would disgrace
myself in such a way.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the
legal options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.

This is where I most vehemently disagree with you, Phil! THAT is
NOT the problem. The problem is that people are so spineless these
days that they will not stand up and say NO. Instead they stand
there with there hands outstretched, saying "For me?? Wow! Look
how Big Daddy Gubmint takes care of me!" never bothering to think
about how they have sold their souls to get what is being handed to
them, refusing to think about the fact that it is the blood, sweat,
and tears of their fellow countrymen that they are consuming like
pablum. It isn't just the CS system--it is every government system
we have!

I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women have
choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was speaking about
the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities of family law. I can
find many problems that are just as important in other areas but that
isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had options beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any of them,
it was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his desire. That
means you had other options, he was left with your choice. The fact
that his choice and your choice were identical means nothing in
regard to which of you had choice. THAT is the problem I have been
discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't agree
that, because that choice is legally available, that makes the choice
totally mine. WE decided together. WE are raising our children. And
no law is going to change that. And both of us know it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that created my
last child; WE made the decision but for all intents and purposes, I
lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID make the decision to
change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought was a good marriage until
she discovered how much she could force me to pay her to divorce me.
Oddly, this all came about just at the end of my term of paying "child
support" to my first wife. I'm not saying YOU are dishonest but millions
of women ARE and in my case, it cost me a quarter of a million dollars
and ended my relationship with my child.

That's one free house; and a NICE one in most parts! And these women STILL
cry what a dirtbag their santa claus is.....



In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We have
met the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in "family law".
Few people are even half-aware of the dealings of legislators and
judges until they find themselves in the situation, primarily because
of the propaganda that overshadows the truth. When the matra is "in
the best interests of the children", most seem to actually believe it
is without bothering to check. When someone points out the facts,
they are accused of sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to be
part of. Just because they are available does not mean that we
should be held responsible for what "might be done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices
they make and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since
men have no legal options beyond conception and women do, the
sole responsiblity for the women's decision should be women's.
The alternative is giving men the same or similar options, which
even out the responsibility or remove the special options of
women putting them on the same plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the
rights you allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children.
That is far more important than the idiot laws that produce
possibilities that we would never consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on
all those who were legally bound to accept the choice they were
not allowed to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never
steal, we don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not
change anything.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that saying
that men should be able to walk away scot free is the way to go. I
think that holding *women* more accountable is the way to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of
which is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks any
choice of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making inroads. I
think that the studies showing the importance of fathers in their
children's lives are making inroads. There is more public awareness
than there was, and we need to keep that going. And it would be nice
if those who were for equal parenting and equal responsibility could
get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on the fringes of both sides
of the issue so we could really make some progress!! I think that the
rising importance of fathers will take care of the majority of the
imbalance--including the "right to walk away" scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as biologically possible,
to each parent. Both should have equal responsibility and equal options
but neither should be able to just do away with the pregnancy or child
by abortion or turning their backs on it.
The justification for making women wholly responsibility just brings to
light the disparity that currently exists between men and women. Since
women currently have 100% of all options with the ability to choose
their degree of responsibility, men should, by rights, held to a zero
degree of responsibility. That wouldn't make them incapable of wanting
to have and raise children, it would only limit their responsiblilty to
equal their legal abilities.

But that CAN'T be right, because then it would make the
equation................................. balance.





Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen
as any different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces
with children result in the custody the mother chooses along
with a promise of a monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give
him equal responsibility, even sincerely believe you are
equal parents but legally, you are not and never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you
want that I am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR
children, but you are WRONG. You are far too jaded, and need
to take a step back and realize that there are still decent,
caring people in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply
does not have any choices in reproduction, (except to remain
celebate and even that doesn't always work thanks to the
courts). Regardless the fact that you regard this choice as a
joint decision, 100% of the legal rights remain yours and yours
alone even if you CHOSE not to enforce them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important
than personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a
residential street should be more important than the law that
says you should drive 25 or less?

Uh, no. I'm saying that you are incorrect in saying that men have
no right of choice about being parents. Many, many men make that
choice, and raise their children with no problems, no government
interference. The fact that the law would back the woman's right to
choose were the law consulted does not matter. The choice made by
the parents is the only thing that matters because the law is not
consulted.

This is the same thing as saying as long as I drive under the speed
limit, there is no need for a speed limit.

What is a man's options in regard to becoming, or his continued
being, a parent? (Other than deciding to engage in sexual activity,
which may or may not be indicative of wishing to be a parent).

The speed limit is only needed for those who break it--although it
applies to all, it is only needed for those who speed.




snip for length


I'm just going to answer this all right here rather than inline.
The fact is that most days I don't even stop to think about what
is legal and what is not because I live my life by a moral code
that goes beyond what legal says is ok.

It is when the law forces one to ignore their own morality that is
the problem; for instance a father who wants his child born but is
not given that chance or the man who wants to raise his child as he
sees fit instead of being forced into paying someone to raise them
in a manner that he feels is not proper or being given set times to
visit ones own child, etc.

It is at that point, when the law is consulted on the issue, that
the law kicks in. And the law is wrong.

So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and thought on the
subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that will bring about
the necessary change--men and women who are tired of fathers being
shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate making women
totally responsible for their unilateral choices. It is not actually the
optimal solution but it points out the problem very well.

Which is meaningless unless the recipient is able (willing?) to see it. But
since the people in power are insane, it is unlikely that will ever happen.
Thus, the only option left is bloodshed. And guess who has the BIGGER army.

If all it does
is gain attention and/or make people think independently, it will have
achieved something.
Phil #3